|
The Boston Globe's Brian McGrory is stunned at Sen. John Kerry's assertion that if Howard Dean doesn't "stand by his word" on using public matching funds, then he "is unqualified to be president." "So let's go back to 1996, to Kerry's reelection campaign against then-Governor Bill Weld, specifically to the night Weld met Kerry at the senator's wife's Beacon Hill mansion. They finalized an unprecedented agreement to limit advertising spending to $5 million apiece, and to limit the use of personal funds in the campaign to $500,000 apiece." "But a funny thing happened on the way to Election Day. Kerry didn't just violate the deal, he pulverized it. Running out of money in the waning days of October, Kerry mortgaged and remortgaged" his home and ultimately poured "$1.7 million in personal funds into his campaign.http://politicalwire.com/archives/002969.htmlIn 1992, for example, Kerry announced he was going to launch an initiative on race, crime, and the problems of urban America. He gave the opening speech of a promised series at Yale University, warning about the costs of a "culture of dependency. . . . We must ask whether is the result of a massive shift in the psychology of our nation that some argue grew out of the excesses of the 1960s, a shift from self-reliance to indulgence and dependence, from caring to self-indulgence, from public accountability to public abdication and chaos," the former antiwar protester said.
(snip)
It was a daring speech for a liberal politician. To some, it appeared as if Kerry was genuflecting toward Little Rock, where Bill Clinton was running for president on a platform that included personal accountability, "ending welfare as we know it," and support for capital punishment -- and might need a northern Democrat to balance the ticket that November. After Clinton chose a fellow southerner, Senator Al Gore of Tennessee, as his running mate, Kerry quietly dropped the series of speeches he had promised to make on race relations.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103_p.shtml
(snip)
Although he depends significantly less than Weld on his large-donor base and refuses to take PAC contributions, Kerry is not without his major benefactors, both inside and outside Massachusetts.
As a member of the Commerce, Science and Technology Committee, Kerry played a key role in the debate over telecommunications deregulation last year. Months after being named a "lifetime hero" by the Consumer Federation of America, Kerry sided against consumer-backed amendments to the deregulation bill that would have capped cable television rate increases and basic service charges. On June 10, 1995, just five days prior to joining 80 other Senators in passing the landmark legislation, Kerry received $28,000 from partners of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, a Boston law firm whose partners have given him $112,046 since 1984. Perhaps not coincidentally, the firm represents a number of corporations with interests in telecommunications deregulation, including Tele-Communications Inc., Time Warner Inc., Turner Broadcasting, and the National Cable Television Association.
While he is one of only four Senators to eschew PAC money, Kerry has had no problems accepting contributions from Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. residents – many of whom were lobbyists – totaling $299,861 over the past five years. During that same period, numerous trips to New York, California, Florida, and Texas have netted $463,353, $367,503, $176,099, and $95,796, respectively. Between January 1, 1991 and March 31, 1996, out-of-state donations accounted for half the large contributions Kerry collected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/money/archive/money051796.htm
Kerry’s criticism of Dean for possibly abandoning campaign spending limits sounds pious now, but it ignores the reality of ’96 campaign – when Kerry “pulverized” a deal in his Senate campaign. Headline from column by Brian McGrory in yesterday’s Boston Globe: “Hard to pull for Kerry” Excerpt: “John Kerry was asked recently about the possibility that Howard Dean might forgo public matching funds in his bid for the nomination, thereby avoiding spending limits. Dean had indicated that he would accept the funds, but now is considering reversing his strategy, much like George W. Bush. And here's what Kerry said: ‘Somebody who wants to be president ought to keep their word. I think it goes to the core of whether you are a different politician or a politician of your word or what you are.’…if I'm interpreting him correctly, is accusing Dean of not being a man of his word, and a man who doesn't live up to his word, Kerry is essentially saying, is unqualified to be president. So let's go back to 1996, to Kerry's reelection campaign against then-Governor Bill Weld, specifically to the night Weld met Kerry at the senator's wife's Beacon Hill mansion. They finalized an unprecedented agreement to limit advertising spending to $5 million apiece, and to limit the use of personal funds in the campaign to $500,000 apiece. Good government types hailed the agreement as a major breakthrough. Kerry and Weld basked in the plaudits of editorialists the nation over. Kerry described the pact as ‘a model for campaign reform across the country.’ But a funny thing happened on the way to Election Day. Kerry didn't just violate the deal, he pulverized it. Running out of money in the waning days of October, Kerry mortgaged and remortgaged the Louisburg Square house, ultimately pouring $1.7 million in personal funds into his campaign. For those of you keeping track at home, that's $1.2 million more than the agreement allowed. As he made a mockery of the pact, he did something else distinctly distasteful. He accused Weld of violating the agreement, a charge that seemed specious at best, an outright lie at worst. At issue was a discount Weld received from the standard fee his media consultant would reap from all ad spending. It allowed Weld to buy about $400,000 more in ads for his $5 million. Every good campaign negotiates a discount, and the written agreement did not preclude them. Kerry claimed it was a violation of a rule that, well, was never written down. Still, yesterday, he repeated the charge. ‘The Kerry campaign took appropriate action to level the playing field,’ said spokeswoman Kelley Benander, adding, ‘The situation with Howard Dean is much more serious.’ Sure he did, and sure it is. I've had my fair share of exposure to Kerry, having spent time covering his policies and politics…The unvarnished truth is, I want to like him. I want to write positively of him. I want to highlight his great potential, his uncanny ability to grasp the human plight. But then he whines or haplessly hollers or passes blame as he feels every bump, every conceivable slight, along an uncommonly gilded path. In this campaign, his answers on the famous Iraq vote aren't nuanced, they're ridiculous. His overall message isn't muddled, it's nonexistent. Dean, it appears, entered the race because he wanted to win. Kerry is running because he thought he could win. The thing is, I know for a fact that Kerry can do better, and hopefully, eventually, he will. But unless and until he does, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire can do better as well.”(9/17/2003)
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/wannabes/Kerry/kerrySept2-2003.htm
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
